He is though. No-one in the history of the game has come close to replicating what Bradman did.

Bradman took 80 Test innings to score all but 7,000 Test runs. Hammond is the fastest of all time to 7,000 runs, and it took him 131 innings. Tendulkar is 2nd on that all time list with 136 innings.

Bradman is one of only 3 batsmen in the history of the game to have scored 2 Test triple centuries in a career, is still miles out in front in terms of double hundreds scored with 12. In 2nd place is Brian Lara, who played almost 3 times the number of innings Bradman did, and made 9.

Looking at Bradman's First Class stats - Bradman has the highest all time career FC average (95) - well clear of 2nd placed Merchant on 71. Bradman also played 338 career FC innings and scored 117 hundreds, with 69 fifties. Again, no-one comes close to replicating those stats.

But stats aren't comparible cross-era. Ask any statistician (preferably one who graduated from a good Uni. Lol).

We can only say Bradman is the best of his era. That's without question.

The fact no-one has averaged 99.94 since him doesn't automatically mean the other batsmen were inferior. For people to not even weigh up the possibility of bowlers being considerably better in following decades is close minded. I was fully open to Bradman being the best ever, hell it's been drummed into me since I was a kid.

BTW- Sehwag has made 2 triple-centuries and could easily get another (or another 2 if the wickets in India are akin to his magnificent run a ball triple) but does that mean he's better than Bradman? (Though tbf, I would say he was good for an extra run in 1932 @ Adelaide so I unofficially count it as 3 triples).

There are 10 individual test scores better than Bradman's 334 and Lara has 2 in the top 3. Looking at that list statistically, especially with Lara having both a test 400 and FC 500 (both of which Bradman didn't have) someone in X amount of years who hasn't seen footage of either could come to the conslusion Lara is better. The fact both of those were made under the best conditions for batting imaginable isn't made available.

Statistically speaking, Bradman is the greatest sportsman of all time. No-one in any other sport where talent can be reasonably measured statistically has been as dominant of his peers as Bradman has.

Haven't seen The Babe or Gretzsky's stats then?

Ruth was a very successful pitcher before being turned into a HR king.

Gretzsky's points tally is insane.

Originally Posted by fredfertang

I don't normally draw attention to this but in the interests of a balanced debate it's worth noting that Larwood got 4 wickets at 73 each in 1930 and picked up plenty of tap from Bradman along the way

Yes he did but that also proves my point he was a very hit-and-miss bowler.

He takes 4/292 in 1930 and then 2 years later takes 33/644.

TBH, he only had 1 good Ashes series and the Bodyline series was it.

Originally Posted by zaremba

Another way to look at it is to say that the 40 run difference is the same as the difference between Bradman and Hammond. Sounds flipping impossible, given that Hammond is by any reckoning an all-time great. And yet it happened; and Bradman and Hammond of course played in the same era and so their records can fairly be compared.

Yeah but again, stats are only as good as the era they're in. I'm not disagreeing with the Don being the best of his era and not (intentionally) trying to take away from what was and extraordinary career.

It's also very hard to compare 2 players who faced completely different attacks.

A guy who averaged 40 against the fearsome foursome would be in my eyes better than someone who averaged 40 against lesser bowlers. Stats wont tell you who they faced on the face of it.

Ruth was a very successful pitcher before being turned into a HR king.

Gretzsky's points tally is insane.

Points tally is irrelevant. I could use Jack Hobbs' career FC runs tally to argue that he's the most statistically dominant cricketer. I'd be wrong to do so.

I'm going to use basketball since it's the US sport that I follow closest and understand best. IIRC, Michael Jordan leads the NBA in points per game. However, to be as statistically dominant over every other NBA player as Bradman is over every other Test batsman, Jordan would have had to have scored something like 45 points per game on average.

In any sport that can measured statistically like that, no sportsman is as far ahead of his peers as Don Bradman.

But stats aren't comparible cross-era. Ask any statistician (preferably one who graduated from a good Uni. Lol).

We can only say Bradman is the best of his era. That's without question.

While what you're saying is technically true, the fact that no-one in the history of the game has come close to replicating what Bradman did, either at Test or First Class level, does your argument no favours.

But stats aren't comparible cross-era. Ask any statistician (preferably one who graduated from a good Uni. Lol).

It's not impossible. It's not even all that difficult to do numerically. The difficulty is in finding normalisation criteria that seems reasonable or that people will agree with. Therein lies the difficulty and considering the blunt-force nature of the raw measures (runs scores, wickets taken, etc.), it would probably raise more questions than answers. Would need some preparatory factor analysis too. Be a brave statistician prepared to stand up to the scrutiny.

Bradman didn't average 56 against Larwood, he averaged 56 in the whole series. Larwood averaged 19.5 in that series. He was by all accounts superb

Also, how can you assume 50+ back then is the equivalent to 50+ now.

Because Lara and Ponting are arguably better then Tendulkar. No one comes close to Bradman.

You're a joker if you think Bradman is 40 runs per innings better than Tendulkar. Even if you think he is better, no way is he 40 runs better. That's the difference between Tendulkar and the typical No.9 or something. Don't make me laugh.

I think you're making everyone laugh, because Bradman is 40 runs better then Tendulkar. You're seriously kidding yourself if you think that anyone, let alone Tendulkar is close to Bradman.

he fact Bradman did so well against us probably points to our poor bowling overall (excluding the 32/33 series).

I'd be of a completely different opininon if he took bowlers like Trueman, Statham and Tyson to the cleaners but he obviously didn't face any of those.

To say Bradman would automatically average more than Tendulkar against the bowlers Tendulkar faced reeks of bias.

Bradman jumped on crap bowling as well as any other, but how much great bowling did he face is the debate.

Bradman would've destroyed Trueman, Statham and Tyson though and he would've probably destroyed any bowler that's ever played the game - Tendulkar probably wouldn't. He got owned by all of the great seam bowlers and cashed in against the spinners.

I find it hilarious that you are calling others bias.

There isn't such thing as a greatest sportsman of all time.

How the hell do you compare cross-sports?!

If anything, Babe Ruth is the greatest since he did more for baseball than any other sportsman has done for their sport. But I still don't see how someone could pick, say, Pele over Wayne Gretzsky. It's impossible.

But regardless, sports nowadays is far more "important" than in any previous time. What you say about Bradman and the depression is very romantic but doesn't compare to the SPORTING pressure placed upon Tendulkar since he was still a kid. Cricket is a religion in India.

Tendulkar is the perfect gentleman and of course would say Bradman was under more pressure and is the better of the 2 batsmen, but that doesn't make it true.

No-one has matched Bradman's dominance in another sport. That's what makes him better then any other sportsmen. For someone to replicate Bradman's dominance in cricket, they'd have to play as much cricket as he did and average 10 with the ball or average 60 with the bat and 20 with the ball.

The media is placed around everywhere in the world these days. Especially on struggling batsman, who are out of form. I suppose batsman who are able to overcome that are equal to Tendulkar?

Plenty of Indian batsman have debutted in this teens, less then a handful of Australians have debuted in their teens. Debutting at a younger age proves nothing but a countries optomisim. Ponting could've debuted for Australia when he was 15, when he was hooking 90mph bouncers off the bowling machine for fun, but that doesn't make him no Bradman.

Tendulkar wasn't carrying the hopes of the Indians, he wasn't under any pressure as a teenager, it wasn't until he become a star in the mid 90's where the pressure started to rise. I've seen Tendulkar bat as a teenager and he was no master and played some shocking shots. I'm sorry, but if you are going to say that Tendulkar is close to Bradman, then perfection is needed and Tendulkar just doesn't have that.

A failure for Tendulkar is averaging in the 20s, whilst a failure for Bradman is averaging 1 or 2 runs more then Tendulkar's career average. Are you aware that when Bradman was in his 60s, he had a net session with the Australian team at the time, with no protective gear on and he smashed them to all parts? I doubt Tendulkar will be doing the same when his in his 60s.

You mustn't have seen many on drives in that case.

Typical Aussie bias I'm afraid. It's not a bad on-drive, but not great. Of all the superlatives about Ponting, elegant isn't 1 that I'd use IAH. Compare him to Vaughan in the same test match in 2005. Come on. And Tendulkar is a classier player than Vaughan.

I can call you biased because I'm not Indian or particularly dislike Aussie sportsmen so I've come to my opinion from unbiased comparison. In Australia, I'm sure Bradman is the next step down from god and it's drilled in from an early age "he's the greatest" much like in America, Babe Ruth is the best ever baseball player and Jordan the best ever basketball player.

The fact that there may POSSIBLY be someone better than those players who's stats aren't as good (or in Sachin's case- nowhere near as good) is too much for some people to take.

As it happens, Gretzky for me IS the best Ice Hockey player ever (and happens to have the best stats) but I think Barry Bonds is a better hitter than Ruth by some distance. Technically the Babe is lacking whereas Barry has the ultimate poer swing. Griffey is the equivalent of Gower. The classiest player of his generation but for some reason or another not up there statistically.

I'm biased? I'm Australian and I've admitted that Tendulkar is a better batsman then Ponting, but assuming you are Indian, you think Tendulkar is better then Bradman? Typical Indian bias and trying to turn the truth the wrong way.

I've seen them both play, they both hit the ball better then anyone else in this era. There is a certain class that holds them above all from the rest of the era and not much seperates Ponting & Tendulkar, but none of them compare to Bradman. Not even close.

Pollock of the 00's, not the 90's.

But even he in the 00's was better than Ntini imo. Steyn has had 1 series against Ponting and wasn't exactly bowling great in that series either.

I'd take Donald over the Pollock of 00, Ntini and Steyn easily.

Plus, that was Sachin's Achilles heel. For him to average 39 compared to Ponting's 20 in his bogy country- India surely tells you alot. Even if you're too pig headed to see it.

So you think that the Indians bowlers are better then Donald & Pollock?

No, I didn't include S.Africa because they don't have anywhere near the histroy of cricket as the other 4 nations.

It's pretty obvious England, Australia, India and West Indies are the big 4 of cricket.

S.Africa for no fault of the players don't have that rich history.

I didn't say South Africa weren't good enough, they were very good (especially at home in the 90's), that wasn't my point for excluding them. And I said earlier Ponting averages 54 against them and that they were/are Tendulkar's Achilles heel.

I'm not hiding anything.

What's history got to do with anything? It's about how good the team was at the present. So if a team with allot of history has a poor attack, you rate the runs against them higher then you would with a team with no history, but a quality attack?

For whats it's worth I think Bradman is the greatest Batsman of all time but not the greatest sportsman. Simple reason being that in the case of Tiger Woods for example he has won 3 times at every major, Jordan was as effective a defensive player as he was an offensive player. Bradman was by miles the greatest batsman but he didnt master all facets of cricket. Cricket is not and has never been all about batsmen.

But stats aren't comparible cross-era. Ask any statistician (preferably one who graduated from a good Uni. Lol).

One more thing about this comment.

If I was to state that Matthew Hayden was a better batsman than Viv Richards, because Hayden had a higher average, then your comment about stats not being comparible cross-era would be valid. (Using the first example that came to mind, this is not meant to be a dig in any way at Hayden.)

However, Bradman doesn't average a few runs more than other greats who batted in less batsman friendly eras. Bradman's career accomplishments at both Test and First Class level, which I've highlighted above, are so far in front of anyone else in the history of the game that there's absolutely no convincing argument to be made against Bradman being far and away the greatest batsman of all time.

For whats it's worth I think Bradman is the greatest Batsman of all time but not the greatest sportsman. Simple reason being that in the case of Tiger Woods for example he has won 3 times at every major, Jordan was as effective a defensive player as he was an offensive player. Bradman was by miles the greatest batsman but he didnt master all facets of cricket. Cricket is not and has never been all about batsmen.

I actually agree with this, don't agree that MJ was as good defensively as offence but in principal you do make a point. Perhaps Bradman is the most dominant sportsperson ever at a key discipline in a sport. Better than Sachin at least!

For whats it's worth I think Bradman is the greatest Batsman of all time but not the greatest sportsman. Simple reason being that in the case of Tiger Woods for example he has won 3 times at every major, Jordan was as effective a defensive player as he was an offensive player. Bradman was by miles the greatest batsman but he didnt master all facets of cricket. Cricket is not and has never been all about batsmen.

Bit harsh, I reckon. Mastering all or most facets of golf/basketball would surely be far easier than mastering all aspects of cricket in terms of the physicality involved (would have to be a gun fielder to meet the criteria too).